A bleeding heart, the criminal's best friend

Andrew Alexander

Last updated at 13:42 13 April 2004

At a time when we are supposed to be short of policemen, when police stations are closing for lack of manpower, 999 calls are subject to scandalous delays and crime is rampant, that seems a very odd way of deploying limited resources.

Another oddity is the new species called the Community Police Support Officer. They also seem to need each other's company.

When I asked a trio of them - yes, a trio - what they were for, the answers were not encouraging.

No, they were not fully trained policemen, or even apprentices. Their job, in the words of the Met, is 'the vital role of security patrols, deterring criminals and providing intelligence to the police officers'.

And they do now have powers of arrest, up to a point. They can issue fixed penalty notices for such offences as dropping litter and can stop someone suspected of a crime.

If he does not give his name and address, he has the option of accompanying the CPSO (or pair or trio) to a police station or being detained until a real policeman arrives.

However, given that they visibly lack the size, presence and majesty of real policemen - and presumably the training in physical encounters - their effectiveness looks questionable. So why spend money this way which could be used for real policemen, or perhaps for keeping police stations open?

The other end of the law and order system is even more discouraging, since those supposed to put away or lock up criminals lack a determination to do the job.

You may think, as the vast majority of the population does, that sentences for crime are trifling and the constant concern for prisoners, rather than victims, ludicrous.

But Phil Wheatley, head of the prison service, thinks we are being too tough.

He said of prison in a recent TV interview: 'It's expensive and it is disruptive to the loved ones of those who commit crimes, often innocent families and children who find that their whole life has to change as a result. It's a difficult experience to get through.' So it may be, like a lot of other experiences families have. But these lives may well change for the better when the removal of a criminal from a family means the removal of a malign influence.

Then there is the new Director of Public Prosecutions, Ken Macdonald, who has the dubious record of being the most successful lawyer in defending terrorists.

He apparently told a Commons committee on penal reform in July, while being considered for the post, that Home Secretary David Blunkett's plans for longer minimum jail sentences were 'grotesque'.

In addition to this pair, opposed to deterring criminals, we have the Lord Chief Justice with his soft heart and soft head.

We also have Anne Owers, Chief Inspector of Prisons, who seems obsessed with inmates lacking - to use her words about Liverpool jail - 'daily showers, shaving facilities and regular changes of underwear'. Our hearts bleed.

Where do they find these people?

They cannot all be pals of Cherie HY do I always seem to see policemen patrolling in pairs? In my younger days, the theme of policemen having to go two-by-two was reserved for Gothic horror stories about lawless areas of Victorian East London. But now ordinary constables seem incapable of solitude.

Blair. The answer lies, of course, in the civil service, especially the Home Office. It has long been taken over by officials who recruit and promote likeminded people known to have 'progressive' views.

Thus, successive Home Secretaries face a consensus of 'advisers' who assure them that prison does not work. Which, of course, it may not if sentences are slashed for good behaviour, are not long enough or are insufficiently rigorous. I do not envy David Blunkett.

At least he deserves commendation for selecting a tough American police chief to head a unit to raise the standard of policing. The nation's chief constables (who hunt in packs) were angry at this appointment from overseas.

The progressives in Whitehall honestly believe that they occupy the moral high ground. The opposite is the case. They lack a proper sense of moral outrage about criminal behaviour. They deplore it, of course, but they regard it as some quirk of upbringing or the result of an environmental misfortune.

Show the criminals the right way and they will be reformed.

But footling penalties are mere encouragements to crime. If the risks of detection by the police are small, and the penalties for offences normally so small, criminals reckon the risks are worthwhile. Why does anyone have difficulty in understanding this elementary proposition?

People who have soft hearts are always understandable. But there is no excuse for having soft heads as well.

Yes, prisons are overcrowded.

Building new prisons is difficult. But there is no shortage of islands around Britain. Hard for the loved ones to get to, it may be complained. Bad luck.

Who is to come first: the victims, or potential victims, of crime, or the criminals? The question answers itself - or ought to.